As others see us.

It's not often that an opportunity comes along that gives you the chance to see yourself through the eyes of others. I had such an opportunity at this year's Annual Educational Conference & Exhibition (AEC), and I thought you might find the results of my unusual experience interesting if not enlightening.

As many of our conference attendees learned this year, we have hired out a significant part of our meeting-planning work to an outside company. Although they (the company's staff) find environmental health interesting, they have very little familiarity or history with the topic or the profession. After being immersed for a week in countless interactions with our members, they now have a well-developed perspective both on us and on the work that we do. Given that they were "clean slates" with virtually no preconceptions about us before the conference began, I couldn't resist the temptation, after our conference was over, to ask them: "So, what do you think of this group and how do we compare with the others you work with?" I suspect that you will find their answers to be as interesting as I did.

Before I give you their answers to my questions, let me first remind everyone that for years, we've been convincing ourselves that we are "the invisible profession." As we have talked among ourselves about who we are, we've also described ourselves as "an unappreciated profession," an "indifferent profession," and even a "left-out profession" (meaning that we are often not invited "to the table").

It is important to appreciate that the metaphors that any profession uses to describe itself have enormous implications. That's because the way we see ourselves plays a major role in how we act and think, to say nothing of what our all-important self-image looks like. Since our thoughts, actions, and ways of evaluating the world are so rooted in our self-image, it is arguably an important line of inquiry to investigate whether the world sees us in the same way that we see ourselves. If others see us as we see ourselves, so be it. If, however, the world sees us differently, then it is incumbent on all of us to reconsider the metaphors we are using and to develop some that are far more accurate. We discredit and undermine ourselves and our profession if we accept definitions of us that are misleading and fundamentally off target.

So what did these outsiders--who were given a chance to meet us up close and personal--have to say about who we were?

Without missing a heartbeat, the very first point that all four staff members blurted out was that they were impressed by how "real" we are. Over and over again, 1 was told that our people were sincere, genuine, authentic, and truly into their work. "Down to earth" was a phrase that was used often to describe our people. Another word that came up again and again was "approachable." "Friendly" was also repeated a lot.

You should know that these comments weren't being shared as if we were engaging in idle conversation. I really pressed the staff of this company to tell me who they saw when they looked at our conference attendees. What made us who we were? What personal characteristics did they see within us that stood out? And so on. The answers they were giving to me weren't knee-jerk or polite responses. They were well-thought-out replies to probing questions.

Once we got past the fact that on the whole, they found us to be a friendly and down-to-earth bunch, the discussion got deeper. With more admiration than intellect, the four all then agreed that beyond our friendliness, an even more compelling trait that they saw was how appreciative we were. As one person put it to me, "There was nothing that we would do that didn't bring back a thank you. We just aren't used to this."

One young woman in particular pointed out that she was the low person on the totem pole and that she was doing some of the more menial work that needed to be done for the conference. She couldn't get over how often our attendees would actually talk to her and thank her for her efforts. She made it clear to me that this wasn't the norm with other conferences that she worked on.

All four also made sure that I knew that they were especially impressed with our board--your board. The company's president explained that with most of the associations he works with (and you need to know that he has had a long career in this type of work and that over that career, he has worked with and for many associations), he has found that most boards tend to be somewhat or very "elitist." He emphasized that NEHA's was anything but. Almost in disbelief, he added that our board members (virtually to a one), all came up to him and his staff to say thank you and to acknowledge in some way the effort that he and his staff were making. He repeated again how impressed he was with how appreciative we all were--which was something that he just wasn't used to seeing.

Another member of the company's staff shared that in the course of performing her work, she seldom has the time to actually listen to any of the conference presentations that take place. In our case, however, she said that it was very hard at times for her to get her work done because she found herself lingering in various meeting rooms to take in some of what was being said. More to the point--and these were her very words--she said, "Your people are talking about the very issues that will be the headlines in tomorrow's paper! What an exciting and fascinating profession you have!"

Other comments having to do with how intelligent, interesting, and important we are were also shared with me. Somehow, however, the discussions always seemed to turn back to how appreciative, relevant, and real we were.

Hmmmmm. How very interesting! When we talk among ourselves, it seems as if we tend to gravitate to self-images that give expression to some of our frustrations and disappointments. Maybe there is something psychological at work. After all, the popular notions of "we are our own worst enemies" or "our own worst critics" didn't come from nowhere.

Nonetheless, as my little series of interview revealed, there are other ways that we strike people. And those ways are good.

My survey hardly qualifies as a scientific study It does, however, hold some merit inasmuch as it reflects the opinions of people who originally knew virtually nothing about us and whose opinions of us only developed after spending some intense time with us. My four survey participants also possessed the unusual ability to compare us with a host of other professions. All of these points make the comments that came back to me meaningful.

I'm not about to argue that society's perceptions of us differ from those we hold of ourselves. (Personally, I believe that the self-images we often talk about as well as the views that were expressed to me by our meeting planners are all valid.) What I would suggest, however, is that we are a complicated profession that has chosen for some reason to emphasize some of the more negative elements of our professional profile. I'm here to say that maybe we need to talk a little bit more about how relevant, helpful, and genuine we are (especially in an era where respect for public-sector employees seems to be so low) and a little less about our invisibility and lack of influence. The more positively we see ourselves, the more our thoughts, actions, and ways of thinking should turn to the positive. And we all know what positive people tend to do. They draw others to them. After all, most everyone likes to be associated with a winner. Ironically, the more that we can do this, the more we should be able to reverse some of the invisibility and lack of influence that we seem to suffer too much from.

Just some idle thoughts from some of the hallway conversations I had during our conference. Thought you would be interested!

Nelson Fabian, M.S.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]